| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Denis Lussier <denis(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 |
| Date: | 2005-06-28 11:18:07 |
| Message-ID: | 42C131EF.70001@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/28/2005 5:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> I agree the current parser is a hack, but it's difficult to see how
>> else it could be implemented.
>
> Since the lexical structure of SQL/PSM seems to be about the same as the
> main SQL, maybe you could get away with having the main parser just
> accepting any tokens at the point where the function body belongs and
> make it count BEGIN's and END's or whatever nesting elements there
> might be.
>
Which then would require that SPI gets another interface added that
allows to feed in a token sequence instead of a query string.
After thinking more about what I wrote yesterday I noticed that we would
lose the potential for query plan recompilation after system cache
invalidation if we do not keep the queries inside of a PL function in
some sort of source code (lexer tokens still are).
Jan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Rylander | 2005-06-28 11:22:36 | Re: ENUM like data type |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-06-28 11:17:24 | Re: Occupied port warning |